Agricultural Protection Zoning
Agricultural Protection Zoning (APZ) preserves the availability of agricultural lands
for farming and thus the agricultural base of the community by constraining nonagricultural development and land uses in designated areas.
Prefatory Sections 1
Introduction 2
Characteristics of Good APZ Candidates 2
Purposes of APZ Districts 3
Advantages and Disadvantages 3
Implementation of APZ 4
Updating the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning
Ordinance 4
Basic Approaches to APZ 4
Specifics to Address in APZ Districts 6
Integrating APZ into the Zoning Ordinance and
Map 7
Supporting Data for APZ 7
Case Study: Lower Heidelberg Township 8
Municipalities Planning Code References to
Agricultural Protection 9
MPC on Comprehensive Plans 9
MPC on Zoning 9
APZ and Land Values 9
Record of Success 10
APZ Adopted by Many Municipalities in Past
Four Decades 10
Validity Upheld by the Courts 11
Other Agricultural Preservation Tools to Consider
in Conjunction with APZ 11
Tools Described at ConservationTools.org 11
Other Tools 12
Related Resources at ConservationTools.org 13
Prefatory Sections
Typical End Users
Local government
Municipalities and counties can incorporate APZ
into their zoning ordinances. Agricultural Protection
Zoning is typically used by municipalities that
contain and want to protect substantial areas of
contiguous farmland and activities supporting local
farming.
Last updated on 11/20/2013 10:17:00 PM
Track Record
Some municipalities in Pennsylvania have had
effective agricultural zoning in place for nearly four
decades.
APZ was first used in Pennsylvania in Lower
Heidelberg Township, Berks County, in 1973. By
1993, 93 municipalities had adopted APZ, covering
725,000 acres, or 10% of land in farms in
Pennsylvania. APZ continues to be adopted by
municipalities, particularly in Berks, Lancaster,
Chester, and York Counties, where the county
planning commissions have supported adoption of
such zoning through technical assistance,
distribution of model ordinances and financial
assistance. Today, in Berks and Lancaster County
alone, 65 municipalities have adopted APZ Districts
protecting over 482,000 acres. In those counties,
even though there has been some attrition of
individual farms to development because of
rezoning or zoning relief via the zoning hearing
board, the general trend is toward more
municipalities adopting such zoning and an increase
in the total number of acres protected.
Conservation Impact
 APZ can protect cropland and pastureland
including prime and statewide important soils
from development for considerable periods of
time. Some municipalities in Pennsylvania have
had agricultural zoning in place for nearly four
decades.
 However, because zoning can be changed, and
since undoing protections is far easier than
establishing them, APZ protections are less
secure than those provided by conservation
easements.
What You’ll Need
 A recently adopted municipal, multi-municipal,
or county comprehensive plan that includes
Agricultural Protection Zoning
 reduce conflicts between farm and non-farm
uses;
strong goals and policies in support of
continued agriculture.
 A governing body with the will to enact APZ.
 maintain a critical mass of farmland that keeps
businesses and organizations that support
farms, such as farm suppliers and granges,
viable;
 The support of and buy-in of farmers in the
municipality from early on in the process is
desirable. Where some farmers are vocally
opposed to such zoning, it is important that
other farmers, conservationists, and other
segments of the community show up in strong
support of preserving local agriculture so
elected officials can gain the confidence they
need to vote favorably on the ordinance.
 Data to support the case for APZ designations
(land use, land ownership, soils, geologic
features, natural features, and preserved lands).
Obstacles and Challenges
 APZ proposals may be met with complaints
from landowners that limiting the development
potential of their property will diminish the
value of their property: “This farm is my 401K”
can be a very persuasive argument before a
Board of Supervisors and has derailed more
than one agricultural zoning initiative.
 protect prime agricultural soils, which, if
developed, are irretrievable;
 keep land affordable for farmers;
 promote more efficient agricultural operations;
and
 protect the character of the community.
Characteristics of Good APZ Candidates
Areas that typically make good candidates for APZ
have the following characteristics:
 Landowners may threaten to challenge APZ in
court, which may sway a Board of Supervisors
contemplating agricultural zoning. Agricultural
zoning has, however, been upheld in court,
when the zoning provisions are drafted properly
and sufficient data can be presented in support
of the zoning.
Introduction
Agricultural Protection Zoning (APZ) is used by
municipalities to preserve the availability of
agricultural lands for farming and provide stability
to the farming economy. The local government
designates areas where agriculture is intended to be
the principal use. Regulations are established for
these agricultural zoning districts to constrain nonagricultural development and uses. APZ regulations
can help to:
Find the most recent edition of this guide at ConservationTools.org
 The municipality has adopted a comprehensive
plan in which the protection of the agricultural
industry in the community is a stated goal. The
plan should support this goal with designation
of agricultural areas on the future land use map
and recommend consideration of APZ as an
implementation technique. Background maps
should contain the data listed under this guide’s
heading “Supporting Data for APZ”.
 There are active farm areas that can remain
viable in the long run, given land use trends,
land values, and policies on sewer and water
facility extensions in the municipality.
 There are contiguous farming areas of
substantial size. These farmed areas should
contain a high percentage of productive
agricultural soils and have a demonstrated
record of productivity. Contiguous areas of
farming will have fewer opportunities for
conflicts with non-farm uses and fewer obstacles
to performing farm activities efficiently.
 Support businesses, such as suppliers and
processors, exist in close proximity. Support
from local county and state agencies, such as the
Cooperative Extension Service and Agricultural
Preservation Boards, is also important.
2
Pennsylvania Land Trust Association
 Farmers in the municipality should generally be
in support of the APZ and be optimistic about
the future of farming in the community.
 The governing body has to have the will to enact
APZ when some people in the community voice
opposition to the APZ.
 Maintain the land resource base, consisting of
farms or land that could be farmed, in large
contiguous blocks that will permit efficient,
profitable agricultural operations.
Purposes of APZ Districts
 Keep separate agricultural land use and
activities from incompatible residential,
commercial and industrial development, and
public facilities.
Local governments must state the intent of the APZ
district in their zoning ordinance. The intent might
include many of the following potential purposes or
variations:
 Lessen the likelihood of non-agricultural uses
interfering with the effective operation of
agricultural operations.
 Protect and promote the continuation of
agriculture in areas with primary agricultural
lands, such as preserved farmland; farmland in
Agricultural Security Areas; farmland enrolled
in Act 319 of 1974, as Amended (Clean and
Green) or Act 515 of 1996, as Amended, and
Land Capability Classes I, II, III and IV and
other soils of statewide importance as defined
by the Natural Resources Conservation Service.
 Strengthen and preserve strong agricultural
activity where farming is a viable component of
the local economy.
 Promote agricultural land uses and activities
and other uses and activities, which act in direct
support of agriculture.
 Protect and stabilize the essential characteristics
of agricultural areas, to minimize conflicting
land uses detrimental to agriculture enterprises,
and to limit development which requires
highways and other public facilities in excess of
those required by agricultural uses. (i.e., curb
sprawl)
 Retain rural character.
 Foster infrastructure for the food industry and
value-added agricultural enterprises.
Advantages and Disadvantages
There are advantages and disadvantages to APZ.
Advantages include that APZ:
 Can be used to protect many large tracts of land
for agriculture all at once
 Protects large tracts of land at a relatively low
cost
 Reduces the conflicts between farmers and nonfarming neighbors by limiting non-farm uses in
the zoning district
 Can be implemented relatively easily
 Can be readily combined with other
conservation tools such as Transferable
Development Rights and conservation
easements.
 Improve food security and product diversity.
 Is easily understood by the public
 Provide for fresh local farm products for the
community.
 Is flexible and easy to modify
 Maintain, protect and stabilize agriculture as an
on-going economic activity by permitting only
those land uses and activities which are either
agricultural in nature or act in direct support of
agriculture.
3
 Increase the viability of agricultural service
industries, such as farm suppliers.
Disadvantages include that APZ:
 Can easily be undone by a change in the zoning
ordinance. (A simple amendment to the zoning
can irreversibly undo years or decades of
zoning-based protection.)
Agricultural Protection Zoning
 Depending on the situation, APZ can potentially
reduce land values. However, APZ can also
increase values. See the discussion under the
heading “APZ and Land Values”.
Implementation of APZ
Updating the Comprehensive Plan and
Zoning Ordinance
alternative approaches to agricultural zoning, and
involving the public in crafting of the district. The
public, particularly the farm community, should be
made aware of the zoning effort and the advantages
and disadvantages of various agricultural zoning
approaches, and given an opportunity to participate
in the zoning process. Workshops, newsletters and
websites can be used as a tool to inform and educate
the community.
Often, implementation of APZ begins with a
community’s update or establishment of a new
comprehensive plan. During the comprehensive
planning process, a desire to retain agriculture in the
community is identified. This desire is then reflected
in the vision, goals and objectives of the community
set forth in the comprehensive plan.
Writing, adoption, and enactment of the ordinance
provisions typically occur with the assistance of a
land use planner and/or municipal solicitor, and are
directly guided by the municipality’s elected and
appointed officials, and any appropriate staff and/or
other municipal consultants (e.g., municipal planner,
engineer, solicitor).
Also during the planning process, data to support
the creation of an agricultural zoning district is
collected, such as mapping of present land use,
parcel ownership, soils, farmland preservation
activities and natural features. Using this
information, areas proposed for agricultural use into
the future are mapped on the comprehensive plan’s
“Future Land Use Plan”.
The proposed zoning mapping and district
regulations must be sent to the county planning
commission for review. The municipal planning
commission holds a public meeting. Ideally, this
meeting is held after receipt of county comments, but
the municipal planning commission does not have to
wait for county comments. The municipal planning
commission reviews any comments received from
the public, makes revisions as appropriate, and then
recommends the zoning ordinance to the governing
body. The governing body holds a public hearing on
the zoning prior to finalization and adoption of the
zoning ordinance. No action can be taken by the
governing body until the county comments are
received or 45 days pass after submission to the
county.
The planning process can foster public support for
establishment of the APZ district through the public
participation opportunities built into the process
including a resident survey, information meetings,
interviews, workshops, focus group meetings, and
official public meetings and public hearings held
prior to adoption of the plan.
After the comprehensive plan is adopted, the
municipal zoning ordinance should be updated to be
consistent with the comprehensive plan. The
mapping of the agricultural district should be based
on the future land use plan and the public
participation process during the zoning ordinance
preparation process. This participation typically
includes zoning committee meetings, public
workshops, and focus group meetings with the
agricultural community. The agricultural district’s
specific restrictions will result from the process of
reviewing the comprehensive plan, discussing the
Basic Approaches to APZ
Historically, municipalities have taken several
different approaches to crafting the permitted uses
and restrictions for lands within an Agricultural
Preservation Zoning District.
Exclusive Agricultural Zoning
Exclusive agricultural zones basically allow only
agricultural and agricultural support operations.
They are not typically used because of the concern
for being challenged as exclusionary with the
Find the most recent edition of this guide at ConservationTools.org
4
Pennsylvania Land Trust Association
resultant possibility of being struck down by the
courts.
Large Lot Zoning
With large lot zoning the minimum lot size is
specified as something in the order of 25, 40 or 50
acres to severely restrict residential development.
Such a lot size may or may not be large enough to
support the needs of a working farm. Also,
subdivisions producing new lots of 25 acres that
become residential estates can remove a significant
amount of prime farmland soil from production.
Area Based Allocation
Area based allocation takes several forms. The
general idea is to allow for residential development
to avoid the exclusionary challenge. One dwelling
might be allowed per a specified number of farm
acres, such as 25. In another approach, a percentage
(such as 10%) of a parcel is permitted to be
developed for residential purposes. Cluster
development of homes can be allowed on the land to
be developed. The Lehigh Valley Planning
Commission’s model agricultural land protection
zoning ordinance uses a 90/10 ratio of protected
farmland to land suitable for residential subdivision.
Sliding-Scale Zoning
Sliding-scale zoning is now the most commonly used
version of area based allocation. The number of
residential lots permitted is based on the size of the
farm. As the size of a parcel increases, the number of
dwellings allowed in relation to the total farm area
decreases (e.g., a 40-acre parcel might be allowed
three dwelling units, while a 200-acre farm might be
allowed eight dwelling units and a 300 acre farm
allowed ten dwelling units). In this approach, a
maximum residential lot size such as two acres is
specified in order to maximize the area available for
agricultural production and minimize the area
devoted to residential purposes. Many ordinances
require residential units to be located on the least
productive soils and located to minimize interference
with agricultural production.
5
Combination of Approaches
In 2010, Lower Mount Bethel Township in
Northampton County adopted a new agricultural
protection district for roughly 70% of their township
that allows tracts or parcels to be subdivided by the
Lehigh Valley Planning Commission’s suggested
90/10 ratio – i.e., 10 percent of the total tract area
subdivided into single-family residential lots (as
small as ½ acre, or as on-lot sewer and water will
allow] provided the other 90 percent is permanently
retained in agriculture; or, subdivide all or some of
the entire tract into 10-acre or larger “estate” lots; or,
using a sliding scale method, subdivide smaller lots
from the larger tract based on a permitted number of
lots per original tract size [again, with new lots as
small as ½ acre, or as on-lot sewer and water will
allow). The Brandywine Conservancy’s
Environmental Management Center helped the
Township and its solicitor draft this ordinance.
Supplemental Item: Required Note
Future subdivision plans may be required by the
agricultural protection zoning to contain a note such
as the following from the Agricultural District in the
Southwestern Berks County Zoning Ordinance.
All lands within the Agricultural Preservation
District are located in an area where land is used
for commercial agricultural production. Owners,
residents and other users of this property or
neighboring property owners may be subjected
to occasional inconvenience, discomfort and the
possibility of injury to property and health
arising from normal and accepted local
agricultural practices and operations, including
but not limited to noise, odors, dust, the
operation of machinery of any kind, including
aircraft, the storage and disposal of manure, the
application of fertilizer, soils amendments,
herbicides and pesticides. Owners, occupants
and users of this property should be prepared to
accept such conditions and inconveniences,
discomfort and possibility of injury from normal
agricultural operations, and are hereby put on
official notice that the state Right to Farm Law
(Act 133 of 1982) may bar them from obtaining a
legal judgment against such normal agricultural
operations.
Agricultural Protection Zoning
The requirement for the note would be established
within the zoning ordinance initially. The
subdivision and land development ordinance could
then contain a requirement that such a provision be
shown on the subdivision plan when required by the
zoning ordinance.
Specifics to Address in APZ Districts
The following items need to be addressed in the
zoning ordinance:
Intent of the District.
See the “Purposes of APZ” heading above.
Definitions.
Key definitions include Agricultural Operations,
Agriculture, General Agriculture and Intensive
Agriculture; Animal Unit if that approach is used to
differentiate General and Intensive Agriculture;
Farm, Farm Building, Farm-Related Business, and
Prime Agricultural Land.
Permitted Uses.
Uses permitted by right are included, such as the
growing of crops, animal husbandry up to a certain
intensity, greenhouses up to a certain size, sale of
farm products, dwellings for farm owner and/or
manager, accessory processing of farm products, and
farm-related businesses. Uses permitted by special
exception or as a conditional use might include
intensive agricultural uses, such as animal
husbandry above a certain intensity (i.e., CAFOs),
greenhouses above a certain size or impervious
coverage limitation, mushroom production and
composting, permissible residential subdivision,
aquaculture, and animal hospitals and veterinary
facilities.
 Uses by right require application for a zoning
permit from the Zoning Officer.
 In the case of a special exception, approval must
first be received from the Zoning Hearing
Board.
 In the case of a conditional use, approval must
first be received from the governing body.
It is quicker, easier and cheaper for the farmer if the
use is permitted by right, and generally, APZ
districts attempt to maximize the uses permitted by
right. Most traditional agricultural activities are
usually allowed by right. Some uses, which are
more intensive in nature and have more potential for
adverse impacts (such as odors and pests) on
surrounding uses, are typically allowed by special
exception or conditional use. This allows the Zoning
Hearing Board or governing body to review
proposed activities and impose additional
reasonable conditions on a use to mitigate the
potential for adverse impacts. CAFOS and
mushroom operations are typically most likely to
require the additional review.
Subdivision
If the right to subdivide for residential purposes will
be provided to the farmer, the ordinance needs to
address which approach discussed above (e.g., area
based allocation or sliding scale) will be utilized as
well as provide specific standards governing
subdivision. Such standards would address number
of lots or percentage of tract to be developed, lot size
minimum and maximum, location of lots and
minimization of disturbance to agricultural
operations and prime agricultural soils.
The ability to subdivide for agricultural purposes
should also be permitted, whether to establish a new
farm parcel, or to convey land to another farmer, to
be combined with those holdings.
Area, Yard, Coverage and Height Restrictions
Area, yard, coverage and height restrictions are
specified for permitted non-residential and
residential uses, including minimum lot size;
minimum front, side and rear yards; maximum
building and impervious coverage; and maximum
building height.
Other Issues
The agricultural district regulations, and other
districts in the ordinance as necessary, should:
Find the most recent edition of this guide at ConservationTools.org
 Address housing for farm labor if it is an issue
in the municipality. If seasonal labor is
6
Pennsylvania Land Trust Association
employed in a region (e.g., in the fruit industry),
and sufficient housing is not generally found in
the community, it may be necessary to allow for
housing for farm workers on farms.
 Allow businesses that support and are related to
agriculture, and accessory farm-related uses.
Such uses would be suppliers to farmers and
processors of farm goods. Farmers should be
allowed to conduct such accessory uses
necessary to their operations or which generate
additional income, such as blacksmithing,
processing and sales of farm products, butcher
shops, and woodcrafts.
 Require sufficient setbacks of non-agricultural
uses from agriculture to lessen the potential for
complaints against farmers.
 Provide for direct marketing of farm products,
such as u-pick it, farmers’ markets, farm stands,
direct sales to outlets such as schools and
restaurants, produce auctions, etc., in order to
increase farm income.
 Address farm-based alternative energies, and
use of prime farmland for commercial power
generation purposes, such as large solar farms.
If ethanol production and similar activities are
to be allowed, this should be specified in the
ordinance.
 Provide for agri-tourism. The ordinance should
specifically allow for uses considered acceptable
in the community and which can generate
additional income for farmers, such as corn
mazes and hayrides.
 Strictly limit uses that do not relate to farming,
such as residential and institutional uses, in
order to minimize loss of farmland and conflicts
between farmers and other uses.
 Support value-added activities, which will
improve the customer base for a commodity or
product and allow the producer of the
commodity or product to keep a greater portion
of the revenue derived from value-added
activities (such as processing milk into cheese).
7
Such activities should be specified as a
permitted use.
 Allow for forestry, as required by the MPC.
Integrating APZ into the Zoning
Ordinance and Map
The agricultural zoning district is mapped on the
zoning map, using factors mentioned above, such as
existing agricultural use being the primary land use,
agricultural conservation easements, agricultural
security areas, productive soils and potential for
farming to continue and be viable.
A separate agricultural zoning district is included in
the ordinance text, rather than in an overlay
provision. Some zoning ordinances may include
more than one agricultural district, usually to
differentiate areas where certain intensive
agricultural uses or certain processing activities or
other agricultural-related industry may be allowed
in addition to cropland and less intensive
agricultural uses.
Supporting Data for APZ
The following information should be collected in
support of APZ:
 Existing land use mapping: Where are
agricultural uses, farm support businesses, and
non-farm uses? What are the sizes and types of
farms?
 Property maps, with ownership.
 Mapping of lands included within Agricultural
Security Areas.
 Mapping of farms that have been preserved
through conservation easements.
 Soils mapping, including prime agricultural
soils and soils of statewide importance.
 Clean and Green areas mapping.
 Natural features mapping, such as wetlands,
hydric soils, steep slopes, floodplains, and forest
land.
Agricultural Protection Zoning
 Mapping of geology and groundwater
resources.
 The conduct of either an exclusionary zoning
analysis, and/or “fair share” analysis, in order to
insure that the municipality has sufficient vacant
land zoned for all types and densities of
residential uses as required by the MPC, and in
certain cases, can provide for its “fair share” of
regional growth, after the new agricultural
district is adopted. Municipalities that cannot
meet these two “requirements” run the risk of
successful curative challenges and court-ordered
development approvals in the middle of their
productive agricultural lands.
Case Study: Lower Heidelberg
Township
In 1971, Lower Heidelberg Township in Berks
County was still a rural, and predominantly
agricultural, township on the urban fringe of the
Reading urban area. Much of the soils in the
Township are fertile Carbonate soils. Township
officials saw that adjoining townships once rural had
become suburban with much farmland lost to
development.
From 1971 to 1973 the Township worked on a
Comprehensive Plan, which resulted in a land use
plan designating much of the township’s agricultural
preservation goals. Subsequent to adoption of the
plan, the Township began work on updating its
zoning ordinance. The Township had in place an
ordinance with an agricultural district; however the
ordinance specified a one-acre minimum lot size and
allowed for residential development throughout the
district.
The Zoning Ordinance of 1973 was updated to
incorporate an Agricultural Preservation district to
implement the land use plan. The Township took
the large-lot zoning approach, requiring a 40-acre
minimum lot size in the district. The Township
solicitor was concerned about this provision being
challenged as exclusionary, so a provision was
inserted into the district provisions that if public
sewer and water were available, a tract could be
developed for one-acre lots by special exception.
Limited public sewer capacity was available, and the
sewer service area was limited, so this did not
present a concern to the Township.
The zoning was very effective in preserving
farmland until it failed. In the early 2000’s, when
sewer capacity became available, the service area
was expanded. Plans for development of several
farms totaling approximately 340 acres were
submitted under the special exception procedure.
In 2000, Lower Heidelberg Township adopted a new
joint comprehensive plan with neighboring South
Heidelberg Township and Wernersville Borough.
Much of Lower Heidelberg remained designated
Agricultural Preservation on the new land use plan.
To implement the joint comprehensive plan, the
three municipalities decided to prepare a joint
zoning ordinance. In 2004 the Southwestern Berks
County Zoning Ordinance was adopted. The
Ordinance contains an Agricultural Preservation
District, which includes much of Lower Heidelberg.
In addition, an Agribusiness and Agriculture District
in South Heidelberg Township is designed to
accommodate agriculture-related industry.
The agricultural preservation zoning in the new
ordinance uses the sliding-scale approach.
Agriculture and agriculture-related uses remain the
predominant uses, but limited residential
development is permitted. The number of
residential lots permitted varies with the size of the
farm. On a parcel of 40 acres, 3 dwellings could be
located. After that, one additional dwelling is
permitted for each 40 acres of the farm. Lots are to
be located to minimize interference with agricultural
production and clustered to minimize loss of prime
agricultural land. The maximum lot size for a
residential lot is 2 acres in order to minimize land
taken out of production. The ability to develop a
tract when public sewer and water are available has
been removed. It is expected that once again the
conversion of farmland for development will be
controlled in the Township. 7,000 acres in Lower
Find the most recent edition of this guide at ConservationTools.org
8
Pennsylvania Land Trust Association
Heidelberg, out of a total of 9,500, are zoned
Agricultural Preservation. (Agricultural easements
protect about 5% of the area zoned Agricultural
Preservation.)
Municipalities Planning Code
References to Agricultural
Protection
MPC on Comprehensive Plans
The Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code
(MPC) states that a comprehensive plan shall
include:
A plan for the protection of natural and historic
resources to the extent not preempted by federal
or state law. This clause includes, but is not
limited to, wetlands and aquifer recharge zones,
woodlands, steep slopes, prime agricultural land
[emphasis added], floodplains, unique natural
areas and historic sites.
For a county comprehensive plan, the MPC states
that the plan shall:
Identify a plan for the preservation and
enhancement of prime agricultural land and
encourage the compatibility of land use
regulation with existing agricultural operations.
The MPC defines agricultural operation as an
enterprise that is actively engaged in the commercial
production and preparation for market of crops,
livestock and livestock products and in the
production, harvesting and preparation for market
or use of agricultural, agronomic, horticultural,
silvicultural and aquacultural crops and
commodities. The term includes an enterprise that
implements changes in production practices and
procedures or types of crops, livestock, livestock
products or commodities produced consistent with
practices and procedures that are normally engaged
by farmers or are consistent with technological
development within the agricultural industry.
MPC on Zoning
Section 603 of the MPC states that: “Zoning
ordinances may contain… provisions to promote
9
and preserve prime agricultural land.” … may
permit, prohibit, regulate, restrict, and determine…
protection and preservation of… prime agricultural
land and activities.” The MPC goes on to state that:
“zoning ordinances shall protect prime agricultural
land and may promote the establishment of
agricultural security areas”; that they “shall
encourage the continuity, development and viability
of agricultural operations”; and that they “may not
restrict agricultural operations or changes to or
expansions of agricultural operations in geographic
areas where agriculture has traditionally been
present, unless the agricultural operation will have a
direct adverse effect on the public health and safety.”
Section 604 of the MPC states that the zoning
ordinance shall be designed to, among other things,
“preserve prime agriculture and farmland
considering topography, soil type and classification,
and present use.”
APZ and Land Values
In suburban municipalities where farmland had
been zoned for suburban residential development
(i.e., one or two-acre zoning) and land values reflect
residential development more so than agricultural
uses, a change in zoning to an agricultural protection
district will likely have an adverse impact on land
values. In such cases, other tools, such as
Transferable Development Rights, can be included as
an option within the new agricultural district, where
farmers and other landowners can sever and sell
TDRs as a way to recapture their potentially lost
land value.
In more rural areas, or in areas where open space is
viewed as a value-added, however, the rezoning of
land to an agricultural protection district may not
significantly harm land value, particularly in the
long-term. For example, before Highland Township
(Chester County adopted their one per 25-acre
agricultural preservation district, the Brandywine
Conservancy, as township planner, commissioned a
market analysis. The analysis looked at township
land values through hypothetical “before and after”
rezoning scenarios. The analysis also compared
Agricultural Protection Zoning
increase property values. First, downzoning can
negatively impact property values because it
puts a constraint on development opportunities.
This negative impact could be large for
properties with great development potential.
However, downzoning could also have several
positive impacts that offset the loss of
development opportunities. The positive effects
could include the enhanced environmental and
landscape amenities valued by buyers,
protecting a critical mass of farms in the local
agricultural community, and the viability of
non-development land uses, reduced burdens
on local government services such as schools
and roads, and reduced uncertainty about future
land use. Which of these offsetting effects
dominates is an empirical question, and the
magnitude of the effects will vary between
markets and individual properties within the
same market.
Highland Township land sales with adjoining West
Marlborough Township land sales based on a longstanding agricultural protection district in place in
that municipality. There was little difference
between land values in the two municipalities, even
though Highland’s current zoning allowed far
greater residential development potential. Like its
neighboring township, West Marlborough, Highland
Township’s fertile fields were also valued for the
raising, keeping, and daily exercise of horses. The
proposed change in zoning from a two and one-half
acre minimum lot size to a one house or lot for every
twenty-five acre density was expected to have an
insignificant effect on local property values. That
has proven true to date.
Sometimes the impact of APZ on land values will be
mixed. In Lower Mount Bethel Township
(Northampton County), for example, a market
analysis commissioned by the Township showed
that the value of large farms (80 to 100 acres plus)
would probably be adversely affected by a proposed
downzoning, simply because such farms were not
being bought by farmers to continue farming.
However, the analysis also found that other
agricultural parcels of 25 to 60 acres would not likely
be adversely impacted by the proposed downzoning,
given their conservation buyer value, or their
attractiveness to farmers for leasing purposes.
What do broader studies have to say about the
impact of APZ on land values? A 2003 study
conducted in Maryland on behalf of the Maryland
Center for Agro-Ecology, Inc. showed that
downzoning had little effect or resulted in higher
land values in the four studied counties. A 2004
study conducted on behalf of the New Jersey Farm
Bureau showed that downzoning harms land values
in six municipalities. A subsequent analysis of these
two studies, “Downzoning and Rural Land Markets:
A review of two recent studies in Maryland and
New Jersey,” found these two studies to be deeply
flawed in their methodologies. The analysis also
made this observation:
Economic theory does not give a clear answer on
whether downzoning should decrease or
Record of Success
APZ Adopted by Many Municipalities in
Past Four Decades
Pre-1973, Pennsylvania municipalities adopted
zoning districts which were called “Agriculture,” but
which typically specified a minimum lot size of one
to ten acres and allowed a variety of non-agricultural
uses as well. In 1973, based on models used in the
Midwest, Lower Heidelberg Township in Berks
County adopted an effective agricultural zone,
which specified a 40-acre minimum lot size and
severely restricted non-agricultural uses. This was
the first use of APZ in Pennsylvania. After the
sliding-scale agriculture zoning approach
subsequently used in York County was validated in
the Courts, the sliding-scale approach became
favored because it was less likely to be challenged as
exclusionary than the large minimum lot size
approach.
By 1993, 93 municipalities had adopted APZ,
covering 725,000 acres, or 10% of land in farms in
Pennsylvania. APZ continues to be adopted by
municipalities in Pennsylvania, particularly in Berks,
Lancaster, Chester, and York Counties, where the
Find the most recent edition of this guide at ConservationTools.org
10
Pennsylvania Land Trust Association
County Planning Commissions have supported
adoption of such zoning through technical
assistance, distribution of model ordinances and
financial assistance. By 2010, in Berks and Lancaster
County alone, 65 municipalities had adopted APZ
Districts protecting over 482,000 acres. In those
counties, even though there has been some attrition
of individual farms to development because of
rezoning or zoning relief via the zoning hearing
board, the general trend is to more municipalities
adopting such zoning and an increase in the total
number of acres protected.
Some municipalities in Pennsylvania have now had
effective agricultural zoning in place for over 35
years.
Given the limited resources available to help protect
agricultural land through conservation easements,
APZ has been a successful and an important tool to
assure large agricultural areas are kept relatively free
of non-farm development; provide a supply of
agricultural land for rental by farmers; protect the
public investment in the purchase of agricultural
easements by preventing loss of adjacent and nearby
farmland; delay development of some farm land
until easements can be purchased; keep farmland
affordable for farmers, and protect the extent of farm
areas necessary to provide a continuing market for
agricultural support services.
Validity Upheld by the Courts
The validity of APZ has been upheld in
Pennsylvania Courts, though how the zoning
ordinance is drafted (and adopted) is important to its
validity. Key cases upholding agricultural zoning
ordinances include:
 Boundary Drive Associates v. Shrewsbury
Township (1985) where the Supreme Court
upheld a sliding scale ordinance in York
County; Codorus Township v. Rodgers (1985)
where the Commonwealth Court upheld a York
County ordinance with a 50-acre minimum lot
area for farms; and McGonigle v. Lower
Heidelberg Township Zoning Hearing Board
11
(2004), where a 40-acre requirement was upheld
by the Commonwealth Court.
 C & M Developers, Inc. v. Bedminster
Township Zoning Hearing Board (2002) where
the Commonwealth Court found this Bucks
County’s agricultural zoning ordinance on firm
ground when requiring at least half of a tract or
parcel of 10 acres or greater to be retained in
agricultural or open space uses when
subdivided. However, this same Court found
Bedminster’s ordinance overly restrictive when
also requiring a net one-acre minimum lot size
for new lots established on the remaining onehalf of a tract or parcel.
 Ethan-Michael, Inc v. Union Township (2007)
where the Commonwealth Court upheld a Berks
County agricultural preservation district using
the sliding-scale approach to residential
dwelling unit or lot determinations.
Other Agricultural Preservation
Tools to Consider in Conjunction
with APZ
Tools Described at
ConservationTools.org
Agricultural protection zoning can be used with
other tools, such as:
Agricultural Security Areas. Landowners may
petition local governments to establish an
Agricultural Security Area (ASA). In an ASA,
farmers are entitled to special protection from
condemnation and laws and ordinances that would
unreasonably restrict farming operations.
Designation as an ASA does not require farmland
owners to preserve their farm for agricultural use;
designation does not constrain development.
Agricultural Conservation Easement Purchase
Program. The Agricultural Conservation Easement
Purchase Program enables state, county and local
governments to pay farmers for agreeing to limit the
use of their land to agricultural production,
Agricultural Protection Zoning
commercial equine activities and certain other uses.
The program has very specific requirements and
criteria for ranking applicants. The program is in
high demand by farmers and county waiting lists are
long. (One prerequisite is that the parcel(s) have to
be located within an established Agricultural
Security Area.)
Transfer of Development Rights. Transfer of
Development Rights is a zoning technique used to
permanently protect farmland and other natural and
cultural resources by redirecting development that
would otherwise occur on these resource lands to
areas planned to accommodate growth and
development. The TDR tool, when combined with
APZ, provides farmers and other landowners with
another option that, through the severance and sale
of TDRs, enables them to capture financial value.
Growing Greener: Conservation By Design. This
tool helps municipalities and developers build new
housing and businesses while protecting important
natural and cultural resources including farmland.
With straightforward changes to municipal
ordinances, new subdivisions can set aside half or
more of buildable land for active farming and other
open space uses. Whether it can be combined with
APZ in a productive way that is acceptable to
Pennsylvania’s courts is unknown at this time.
Clean and Green. In many counties Clean and Green
provides for lower property tax assessments of land
capable of producing wood products, agricultural
land, and open space land open to the public. Clean
and Green encourages farmers to keep farming on
their land(s) by providing a tax incentive for not
developing the land, but does not prevent the sale of
farmland for residential, commercial and/or
industrial land developments/subdivisions. This is a
voluntary program, and 10 acres is the minimum
amount of contiguous acres needed to receive the
benefits of this program.
Other Tools
The following is a menu of administrative and
supplemental zoning policies designed to encourage
and protect agriculture:
Find the most recent edition of this guide at ConservationTools.org
 Support measures to relieve property tax burden
for farmers.
 Support measures (such as Act 153 referenda)
that utilize modest tax increases to raise local tax
revenues that can be devoted to the purchase of
agricultural (conservation) easements.
Referenda on earned income tax increases are
less impacting on farmers and other large
landowners compared with property tax
measures.
 Limit extension of public sewer and water
facilities to agricultural areas.
 Permit businesses which support agricultural
operations, such as farm equipment sales and
service, farm supply stores, and businesses
which market or process farm products.
 Allow farmers to supplement incomes through
home businesses, home occupations and farm
related businesses.
 Permit appropriate recreational activities, such
as hayrides, corn mazes, and festivals.
 Limit non-farm uses, which could cause conflicts
with agricultural practices and/or require
buffers for non-farm uses around the perimeter
of farms. Direct any non-farm development to
parcels least suited to farming.
 Allow and give incentives to compact
development and higher densities where public
sewer and water are available in areas
designated for development, and give
disincentives to inefficient development
techniques.
 Support establishment and continuation of
farm-related programs and organizations.
 Discourage construction of roads through
agricultural areas.
 Work to improve relationships between farmers
and non-farm neighbors.
 Make information available on the Pennsylvania
agricultural loan program, which permits
farmers to borrow funds for land, buildings,
12
Pennsylvania Land Trust Association
machinery, or equipment bought, built or
renovated for the benefit of the business.
 Encourage farmers to utilize the Pennsylvania
Farm Link program created by the Center for
Rural Pennsylvania. This program is designed
to help match farmers planning for retirement,
and other interested landowners, with farmers
hoping to work into farm ownership on longterm leasing.
 In the zoning ordinance, put people on notice:
“Agricultural activities permitted to be
conducted within the municipality by this
Ordinance may be conducted even though those
activities may create an annoyance or
inconvenience to neighboring residential uses
due to sights, sounds, smells or other conditions
resulting from the agricultural activities,
provided that the agricultural activities are
conducted in accordance with any and all
regulations of the municipality, this Ordinance,
and the State and are not conducted in a manner
which creates a definite danger to the health or
safety of neighboring uses.” While many people
in a municipality do not read their zoning
ordinance, the municipal engineer who reviews
subdivision plans can ask for such a notification
to be placed on subdivision plans for
development near agricultural areas, to increase
the possibility of new residents in the
community being informed of the rights of
farmers to conduct agricultural activities.
 Allow alternatives to “traditional agriculture”:
Often agriculture has been equated with
“traditional” methods such as dairy farming,
raising of steers, and cultivating such crops as
corn, hay, wheat, alfalfa, soybeans, barley, and
oats. Increasingly, there are alternatives that can
be practiced to supplement farm income or
utilize smaller parcels of land, including:
o Winery
o Christmas tree farm
o Pick-your-own operation
o Contracting organic farm
o Herb farm
o Orchard
o “Agritainment” (using crafts, corn mazes,
petting zoos, entertainers, hay tunnels, and
hayrides to generate income and attract
purchase of produce)
o Goat products
o Hydroponics
o Ornamental crops
Related Resources at
ConservationTools.org
Featured Library Items
Guidebook For PA Municipalities on how to protect
valuable agricultural lands
Act 67 and 68 Update for Zoning for Farming
Planning For Agriculture, Second Edition
Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (19th
edition)
Berks County Agricultural Zoning Incentive
Program
Agricultural Zoning Guidelines for Lancaster
County, Pennsylvania
Downzoning and Rural Land Markets: A review of
two recent studies in Maryland and New Jersey
Southwestern Berks County Zoning Ordinance .
o Nursery/greenhouse
Related Guides
Agricultural Security Areas
o Horse farm
Transfer of Development Rights
o Equestrian center
13
o Wildflower/flower farm
Agricultural Protection Zoning
Experts
Glenn Neuhs
Spotts, Stevens & McCoy
610-621-2000
[email protected]
Glenn worked with Lower Heidelberg Township in
the preparation of the first APZ in Pennsylvania in
1973. Since then, he has worked on the drafting of a
number of APZ ordinances in Pennsylvania.
John Snook
Environmental Management Center, Brandywine
Conservancy
(610) 388-8387
[email protected]
John has over 30 years of land use and
environmental planning experience in southeast
Pennsylvania, and is a frequent lecturer on topics of
transferable development rights, historic
preservation, and open space design.
Olev Tamarea
Lehigh Valley Planning Commission
(610) 264-4544 or 1 (888) 627-8808
[email protected]
Olev serves as Chief Planner for the Lehigh Valley
Planning Commission. Crafted 90/10 APZ language
for two Lehigh County municipalities.
John Theilacker
Brandywine Conservancy
(610) 388-8389
[email protected]
John directs the Brandywine Conservancy’s
Municipal Assistance Program. A Certified Planner,
John has over 28 years of experience in land use and
environmental planning.
Peter Nelson
Grim, Biehn & Thatcher
215-257-6811
[email protected]
I have written and defended numerous Ag.
Protection Zoning Ordinance provisions.
Disclaimer
Nothing contained in this or any other document available at
ConservationTools.org is intended to be relied upon as legal
advice. The authors disclaim any attorney-client relationship
with anyone to whom this document is furnished. Nothing
contained in this document is intended to be used, and cannot
be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the
Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or
recommending to any person any transaction or matter
addressed in this document.
Submit Comments and
Suggestions
The Pennsylvania Land Trust Association would like to
know your thoughts about this guide: Do any subjects
need clarification or expansion? Other concerns? Please
contact Andy Loza at 717-230-8560 or
[email protected] with your thoughts. Thank you.
Acknowledgements
Initial draft prepared by Spotts Stevens McCoy with
contributions by Andy Loza and John Theilacker.
Edited by Andy Loza.
The Pennsylvania Land Trust Association published
this guide with support from the William Penn
Foundation and the Growing Greener Program of
the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and
Natural Resources, Bureau of Recreation and
Conservation.
© 2011 Pennsylvania Land Trust Association
Text may be excerpted and reproduced with
acknowledgement of ConservationTools.org and the
Pennsylvania Land Trust Association.
Find the most recent edition of this guide at ConservationTools.org
14